About your Search

20121112
20121120
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10 (some duplicates have been removed)
on the primary. i want to touch on something david said. the year that things shifted, before ronald reagan, he 70% top tax rates for top income earners. you had really powerful unions. had you major government abuses of power. now republicans have continued to move right, as democrats have moved right. you point out romney care. that is the basis for the president's health care reform. in a lot of ways, conservative ideas have won the day. we're no longer talking about 70% tax rates, but republicans in response to draw a really stark contrast have moved out further to the right. to move back to the center there, are policy differences, but it requires subtlety and nuances. but it's harder than yelling about death panels and soci socialism. >> the primary voters have been delivering tea party candidates and overthrowing some incumbent senate candidates, ending up with tea party candidates that absolutely cannot win as we saw in indianapolis. so as much as there are leadership questions involved, how do you get control of the republican primary electorate? >> for a party to be defined as cohesiv
if ronald reagan sent troops to the middle east and hundreds were killed and reagan just cut and ran? >> caller: oh, absolutely. >> john: chris thank you for the call. benghazi is not going to go away, and that's why i'm so thankful for media outlets for -- well like what you have right here peter. >> we do what we can. >> john: we're taking your calls at 866-55-press, we'll be right back, talking about the the -- horror that is the american music awards and much more. >> announcer: this is the "bill press show." >>tax cuts don't create jobs. the golden years as the conservatives call them, we had the highest tax rates, and the highest amount of growth, and the highest amount of jobs. those are facts. >>"if you ever raise taxes on the rich, you're going to destroy our economy." not true! ♪ >> announcer: chatting with you live at current.com/billpress. this is the "bill press show." >> john: this is the "bill press show." i am not bill press, i'm john fugelsang. happy to be filling in with peter and dan and the whole crew. what are the comments. >> we're tweeting @bpshow
, then president ronald reagan was asked if he had anything to say to the people in the country who did not vote for him and who did not feel that they were part of the reagan revolution. he was also asked about nancy reagan falling down and bumping her head right before the election. he said that she had a tender lump on the side of her head, but that she would be fine. in president clinton's first press conference, after he was re-elected to a second term, the president started to answer a question about the role of first lady hillary clinton in the second clinton term, before he sort of diverted himself into talking about just how damned tired he was. >> well, let me answer the question about hillary. i think what first lady will do is something that i think it will be consistent with what she's been doing, but we have not, frankly, we've been too hi tired to talk about it. yesterday, i'm embarrassed to tell the american people, i actually slept past noon. i was tired. >> there's no shame in that. >> in the first press conference that george w. bush gave after he was re-elected in 2004, the p
income tax? [talking over each other] a big part of it was ronald reagan's in the reform act of 1886 that, you know, increased reductions and what have you. when i got out of school, probably before both of you were born, it was in the middle 20s. and the direction we are going, guys, it will be in the mid- 50s. in the argument of so-called fairness, we are telling, you know, the top few% that pay 43% of all taxes, it is only fair you pay more. i hope it will be a very welcome outcome. connell: largely, i am sure, it is 2% versus 98% when you pull it. it is very popular, the idea of raising taxes on the rich. they favor extending the bush tax cuts except for the wealthy. neil: you assume that the rich guy pay for it. what i would not do at that table, i would not -- about the appetizer. then, what happens is we penalize those who provide -- believe me, i am not one of these, by the way, nothing wrong with that. i just think it is a disjointed argument. one thing romney did get right, although he maybe did not articulate as well as he should have, it is about everyone having a stake in the
s, of considers under ronald reagan and george w. bush's tax rates in 2003. it's interesting, i found two universal effects of those tax cuts. first, in every instance we cut the rates, the economy worked faster. it did work, mr. president, we got a lot of growth. but the second may be more interesting, is that guess what happened to the share of taxes paid by the rich. they went up, in fact, if you want to get more money, mr. president, out of rich people, cut their tax rate, don't raise them, because history proves it. >> dave: certainly did in the reagan years and another peace in the wall street journal a couple back, clinton rates, raised top tier 39.6 and as the authors of that piece said produced the one period of shared prosperity not because they raised taxes, but certainly lead to growth, right? >> no question. the 1990's was a prosperous era, but i think that sometimes people get a little of that history wrong what happened in the 1990's, president clinton raised taxes in the first year in office and remember, the first two years in office were a catastrophe and in fa
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10 (some duplicates have been removed)